How we found a name for our working structure

(Adrien Labaeye) #1

This historic thread documents the naming process for our Working Circles.
TODO: Link to current description inside discourse
TODO: Move the text from the wiki inside discourse and update it here

This topic/thread is about the Working structure introduced in Potsdam. It is described on the wiki under the title The TransforMap Circles (open to volunteers!)

The term Circle was chosen to represent the idea that they’re not rigid and separate teams, but that they represent circles of activities whose membership may overlap.
A way to understand circles in sociocratice terms is to say that inside a circle are people who commit to implement a consensus around a set of specific tasks. Outside the circle, but still part of the TransforMap community are all those who give their consent to the implementation of tasks, but do not actively contribute to it.

(Jon Richter) #2

Well, hub is very much on top of the nonsensical terms that don’t add any value to a sentence, like Open, Co-*, Facilitate, etc.

I like to understand those groups as organic corpuscels that create themselves whenever they are needed. From this point of view, creating an animal narrative may be lots of fun, but only deranges the discussion from what prescribed groups should be working on.

But having them aligned as virtual spaces, where anyone can join in and out, like in the Open Space, feels much more comfortable and appropriate to the process. Therefore it’s about the tasks, the stories, the different narratives we pursuit and not about the “who-and-who”.

(Adrien Labaeye) #3

[quote=“almereyda, post:2, topic:134”]
But having them aligned as virtual spaces, where anyone can join in and out, like in the Open Space, feels much more comfortable and appropriate to the process. Therefore it’s about the tasks, the stories, the different narratives we pursuit and not about the “who-and-who”.
[/quote] :+1:

“Virtual Spaces” is your proposal? This is how I understand them but I’m not sure it’s a good name.
What about: “Fireplaces”? or “Working Rooms” or “Working Place” or “Desks”?

(Jon Richter) #4


Yeah, we’re getting closer. working tables or just working spaces/areas/fields come to my mind. Additionally, I gain a lot of insight from terms like User Story or User Group lately. So maybe they are some kind of performative spaces that have established and documented, semi-stable workflows one can easily tune in?

The User Group term also reflects everything related to communities, but more broken down to the individual level. Which is what fascinates me: That we seem to be able to witness direct, therefore the term peer to peer, cooperation that doesn’t neccessarily involve classical organizations anymore. That these webs of interaction are in the end self reproducing if they manage to get work done, and not, if not.

More abstract, higher views can then easily involve, following Stiegler’s terms, organologic aggregates that we my refer to as Processes, Products, Movements, Networks, Initiatives etc. that take the role of stewarding themselves, but always with a clear Commoning perspective. That we don’t own the assetts nor the outcomes, but maintain the process for the public good.

Recently read somewhere:

What’s the difference between Projects and Products?
Projects end, Products don’t.

(Josef Kreitmayer) #5

oups, just got the message of Adrien, and integrated the hubs in the category names of discourse. I have a physical feeling thinking of hubs and therefor would keep it.

(Josef Kreitmayer) #6

also like the subs idea.
hubs and subs : )

Ok, I notice, that I do care about the name, and dislike all the other options mentioned above. They seem to much object oriented, whereas I see the hub term as people coming together orientated.

how we come to a decision? Would you go with the hubs and subs, as I think, that @alabaeye probably would. What about you @almereyda?

: )

(Jon Richter) #7

Well, maybe we should decide first together, if we already know there are things to be considered together, and implement the stuff later.

Let’s find a term that is not charged with too many preassumptions. Group may work well as a neutral denominator.

(Adrien Labaeye) #8

@Silke wrote:

workshop is fine for me; I would also like “circle” - is an indicator of how communication within these groups should be initiated and led (in a circle; P2P and whenever possible f2f)

Thanks for documenting all the work we’ve done in Potsdam on governance issues:
One comment on the “hamsters” - actually, they are a symbol of hoarding, I know that they NEED to hoard in order to survive, just wanna point to the association.

(Adrien Labaeye) #9

I find “groups” not great. It may carry the idea that there are determined groups of people (see my previous explanation above).
I would be happy with any of the following: “circles”, “hubs”, or “working spaces” or “desks”.

(Stefan A) #10

Hello y’all,

I quite like “circles” or “working circles” or “spinning circles”. For one, this terminology is less normative than some of the above mentioned. In addition, it gives us the possibility to coin the term and have it say what we really want it to say (i.e. it’s a “fresh” term). The geometrical circle is also a good analogy for the way we want to work together - at least that is my impression. Finally, in keeping with our animal theme, we can think about the circle of life… :smile:

(Jon Richter) #11

Then let’s go simply for circle - which would also fit @josefkreitmayer’s original idea of referring to the Sociocratic structure, which also talks about circles. Therefore unfortunately this term has already been coined, @sagaskew :wink:

Please also consider of seperating this meta information from the Discourse Category title, as it can be easily perceived as visual noise. Better use the About the … category articles to explain the theory in detail.

(Stefan A) #12

My bad :slight_smile: I’m still all in favour of circles though.

(Adrien Labaeye) #13

Circles seems quite consensual. Done! :smile:


Great! Also my favourite :slight_smile:

(Josef Kreitmayer) #15

same here. also liked hubs, but hey, circles seems consent by far : ) :smile:

(Josef Kreitmayer) #16

(Silke ) #17

Did I already say, that I also like the “fireplaces idea” and that I am
not sure if I understand the “hubs and subs” thing?


(Thomas Kalka) #18

@alabaeye could you condense this thread or alternatively link to a new thread, which describe working cirlces ?

(Jon Richter) #19

From the plethora of terms, I liked flock lately very much, because it resembles the organic composition and dismissal of ever changing groupings.

Hihi, and yes, I can answer to frozen articles :smile:

(Thomas Kalka) #20